Saturday, October 6, 2012

WHAT ABOUT THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM?

Whenever I am asked what provision of the current Constitution I
think should be amended, I do not say that nothing there deserves to be
amended. In fact, I would be the
first to say that what we have now is by no means a perfect document. It is a work in progress and will
continue to be such for as long as the Republic lasts. In a recent talking engagement, I was
asked what three provisions of the Constitution I would like to see
amended. I gave two answers and
one of them was for a serious reassessment of where the party list system has
brought us. I was not surprised
when that answer received applause.
After all, it is widely publicized that the Comelec is now in the
process of cleaning up the system.

The original inspiration for the introduction of this novelty
into the Constitution was a fairly widespread desire to give the
underprivileged sectors of society the capacity to represent themselves in the
affairs of the nation. The idea
was generally accepted as valid, but the problem was how to put it into a
workable formula that could produce the desired result. Nevertheless the Constitution
Commission went ahead to engraft it in the Constitution as an experiment. The experiment has been going on for
twenty five years now. That the
Comelec is now engaged in a major cleanup campaign is proof that we have not
yet solved that problem. Should we
continue the experiment or end it?

The experiment started with two related concepts found in the Constitution
itself: sectoral representation and party-list representation. The first phase was sectoral
representation. “For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to
party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or
election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the
religious sector.” How were
they to be chosen? “Until a law is
passed, the President may fill by appointment from a list of nominees by the
respective sectors, the seats reserved for sectoral representation . . .”
Sectoral representation lasted for nine years. Thereafter the party-list system came into force.

Under the party list system, disadvantaged groups would still
organize by sectors. Next, they
register themselves as parties, and present themselves to the electorate. Hence, during election time, every
voter casts two votes: one for a district representative and one for a party
list organization. A citizen can vote for any party. At the end of the day, the COMELEC tabulates the votes cast
to determine how many votes each party or organization garnered.

In the earlier phase of the implementation of the system, only
the party-list organizations which garnered at least 2% of the total votes cast
for party-lists could win a seat in Congress. Under this rule, while the party lists were entitled to 20% of
the total seats the seats in Congress, the 20% reserved for them mathematically could never be filled. Hence, the Supreme Court declared the
2% requirement as unconstitutional and the 20% share of party list
organizations as mandatory. Now,
the Comelec keeps choosing qualifiers until 20% of the total seats in Congress
are filled.

The system as described seems neat enough. But why are party-list aspirants being
disqualified?

First, it is a known fact that elections cost money. The three-term grace period given to
sectoral groups was meant to enable them to build up their resources in order
for them to be capable of competing in the political arena. That was a tall order and I doubt that
they succeeded in gathering enough political strength.

Second, left to struggle in weakness, they become easy prey to
stronger political parties or wealthy individuals with goals of their own. This easily results in the
bastardization of the system.

Third, as pronounced by the Court, participation in the
party-list system is limited to the "marginalized and underprivileged” and
that the system is “a social justice tool designed not only to give more law to
the great masses of our people who have less in life, but also to enable them
to become veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered to participate directly in
the enactment of laws designed to benefit them." The Court laid down guidelines for the Comelec to apply in
deciding which organizations qualify.
Among the guidelines was the requirement that the parties or
organizations must truly represent
the marginalized and underrepresented sector. The Comelec now is finding that
many aspiring organizations do not satisfy this requirement.

Moreover, the Court also ruled that party-list representatives
themselves "must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors."
That is, they must have at heart the interest of the party they represent. The
problem, however, is that possession of this ideological quality is not easily
proved or disproved. How do you
prove, for instance, that Mikey Arroyo has or does not have at heart the
interest of the party he represents?

This is not to say that there are no leaders that have arisen
from the ranks of party list organizations. A few have. But
do their number justify the continuation of the experiment?